Susan Kramer's response to BAA's consultation on Airtrack.

Susan Kramer and Baroness Ludford MEP wait . . and wait at a 'locked down' crossing

• ' . . AS the proposal currently stands it would literally "lock-down" much of my constituency between the rail and the river which no-one can consider viable.'

'I am responding to the Airtrack consultation in my role as the Member of Parliament for Richmond Park. The proposed path of Airtrack runs through my constituency en route from Heathrow to Waterloo. In principle, I warmly support proposals to increase public transport and especially schemes to shift passengers from car to rail. A workable Airtrack scheme would have advantages for my constituents, improving public transport access to Heathrow and possibly Paddington.

However, the scheme as it is today is simply not workable. You will notice that a significant part of my constituency, comprising much of Richmond, Sheen, Kew, Mortlake and Barnes, is bounded by the river Thames to the north and the rail line to the south. The road bridges across the Thames are few and are filled to capacity at many times of the day and frankly are used beyond reasonable capacity at the hours of peak travel. Traffic backs up for long distances. Most traffic once it crosses the river ends up in the gridlock of the A4/M4.

Commuters of all kinds - people going to work, to school, to the doctors or hospitals, going shopping etc., and police, fire and ambulance services - rely on crossing the rail line. Only in the already congested centre of Richmond town itself and at Clifford Avenue, a narrow bridge road, can this be done without using a level crossing. Local people are already utterly frustrated at the waiting times at Manor Road, Sheen Lane, White Hart Lane and Vine Road. Vine Road is complicated by having two adjacent rail lines, a fact which your consultation has entirely missed. Only Sheen Lane has a pedestrian bridge although one is now planned for Manor Road.

Richmond Council will be able to confirm to you, as will South West trains and Network Rail, that these level crossings are already down for more than 30 minutes in the hour at peak times. Traffic backs up onto the A316 and the A250 (the South Circular) for long distances. As I understand, your traffic survey for these roads was carried out in an extra-ordinary week when the closure of the entire centre of Richmond town forced virtually all traffic away from the area so you will have little understanding of the problem.

Network Rail has confirmed to me that the Airtrack proposal will lead to the level crossings being closed for much longer at peak hours with 45 minutes out of the hour as the likely result. When I spoke to staff at the consultation on Airtrack in Richmond they explained to me that this would not happen because Airtrack would replace existing commuter rail services. But South-West trains have insisted that this is not possible since the impact on commuters, who use all the stations along the line in large numbers, would be quite devastating.

The Airtrack consultation also describes a 10 and 12 car service introduced in 2014. However, no coherent plans yet exist to extend platforms along the line to take more than 8 car trains and we are already about to enter 2009. You will be aware that extending the platform at Richmond Station is an engineer's nightmare.

You also describe an Airtrack service which comes through my constituency twice each way each hour. Frankly, I do think that any service that runs only twice an hour is a credible rail option. I struggle to think of passengers who miss the train either waiting half-an hour or taking trains to Staines and then changing platforms, luggage and all, as you suggest they would. I am very concerned that pressure would grow to increase the number of services.

Through no fault of Airtrack, this scheme is a victim of the reality that road and rail access through my constituency is already filled to absolute capacity given the capabilities of the existing infrastructure. The only way to accommodate the Airtrack service is a long overdue upgrade of the rail line, not just platforms but signalling at the very least. The rail infrastructure needs to enter the 21st century. It would be excellent to take this opportunity to properly expand the capacity of transport in my area to cope with the ever growing demand and a rising local population.

I know that Airtrack has now agreed to fund a proper road and rail survey to get a strategic view of what is happening. A strategic transport solution is clearly necessary. I will be glad to co-operate in this work but I see any solution as reducing the down time of level crossings not increasing it. As the proposal currently stands it would literally "lock-down" much of my constituency between the rail and the river which no-one can consider viable.'